It is extremely rare for a tribunal not to hear both sides at a hearing, but that is what happened in this case.
Is it a defence for an employer, when faced with an unfair dismissal claim, to argue that dismissing an employee without disciplinary proceedings was kinder than following a proper process? The employer in this case found out the hard way.
As this case illustrates, even if an employee's performance is accepted by both sides to be unacceptable, his or her dismissal can still be unfair if the employer does not consider alternatives.
In this case, a failure to consider a job transfer for a sick employee rendered his dismissal unfair.
An employment tribunal found that a postwoman had been unfairly dismissed after a series of absences.
Dismissal of depressed and disabled employee was fair
This tribunal found that there was no genuine redundancy situation, and that the employer effectively demoted the claimant and reduced his pay for no good reason.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers ill-health retirements.
In First West Yorkshire Ltd t/a First Leeds v Haigh EAT/0246/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that for a long-term ill health dismissal to be fair the employer should first consider its ill health retirement scheme, where applicable.
In Corus UK Ltd v Mainwaring EAT/0053/07, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that it was not necessary for the employer to get a statement from an anonymous informant, or obtain a consultant's report when an occupational health adviser was consulted about a dismissal for dishonestly reporting off sick.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissals for a reason relating to the capability or qualifications of the employee.